Ok, so the more they email me, the more I get nervous about the water temp. Last year it was 69 which stung to get in, but it made for a nice swimming temp. By the end, though, my fingers and toes felt a little numb, but that could have been tired (??).
But this year, it could be up to 10 degrees colder?! What to do when the coolest water I can find here in Cincinnati is 80?
Comparing previous times only works if all other factors are the same. I noticed in 2004, Paul Smith had a 7 second improvement in his 200 IM in one month. I could argue that such a result for someone like him is "unattainable", until we consider that his faster time was at Nationals. Peaking for a race, other events in the same day, or any number of other factors need to be considered when comparing times.
Since some people seem to have missed my earlier post, Andy's history for most of the last decade is:
1) Having his training interrupted by injury/illness
2) Getting injured or sick right around the combination
3) 1 & 2
So his "history" shows that he is one of the faster distance swimmers in his age group, at less than ideal conditions. As Tom pointed out, Andy had the perfect storm for this race:
1) Great practices for the past year
2) Healthy up to and through the event
3) Deliberately peaked for this particular race
4) Ideal race - straight lines, racers from previous heats to "sling-shot" from
5) Blue70 doesn't hurt either
As an anecdote, I was talking to a friend who swam several Big Shoulders (before he started doing Ironman Wisconsin). I told him that Andy managed to get the best time at Big Shoulders, and he blurted out "I believe it" before I could mention the discussion board controversy.
If it sounds like I am defending him, it's because I know the guy. From practice, he is an endurance machine (when not injured). As a person, winning the race doesn't mean enough that he would think about cheating. His interest would be to see what he could do, what he is capable of when at 100%.
Comparing previous times only works if all other factors are the same. I noticed in 2004, Paul Smith had a 7 second improvement in his 200 IM in one month. I could argue that such a result for someone like him is "unattainable", until we consider that his faster time was at Nationals. Peaking for a race, other events in the same day, or any number of other factors need to be considered when comparing times.
Since some people seem to have missed my earlier post, Andy's history for most of the last decade is:
1) Having his training interrupted by injury/illness
2) Getting injured or sick right around the combination
3) 1 & 2
So his "history" shows that he is one of the faster distance swimmers in his age group, at less than ideal conditions. As Tom pointed out, Andy had the perfect storm for this race:
1) Great practices for the past year
2) Healthy up to and through the event
3) Deliberately peaked for this particular race
4) Ideal race - straight lines, racers from previous heats to "sling-shot" from
5) Blue70 doesn't hurt either
As an anecdote, I was talking to a friend who swam several Big Shoulders (before he started doing Ironman Wisconsin). I told him that Andy managed to get the best time at Big Shoulders, and he blurted out "I believe it" before I could mention the discussion board controversy.
If it sounds like I am defending him, it's because I know the guy. From practice, he is an endurance machine (when not injured). As a person, winning the race doesn't mean enough that he would think about cheating. His interest would be to see what he could do, what he is capable of when at 100%.
